Re: apt vs aptitude (was ... Re: non-stable packages infestation)
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 09:21:53AM -0300, Francisco M Neto wrote: > I actually miss the good'ol days of dselect. Apart from that I've been using > a combination of apt for small tasks and synaptic for large numbers of > packages. For me, those good old days never ended. I still use dselect. :) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150429180738.GB12462@side
Re: apt vs aptitude (was ... Re: non-stable packages infestation)
On 2015-04-29, Doug wrote: > > > On 04/28/2015 09:51 PM, Marco Segura wrote: >> I think use aptitude or apt is more a personal decision than any other >> thing, however I believe aptitude is more powerful. >> -- >> Marco T. Segura M. >> >> >> «Cuando naciste, todos reían y solo tu llorabas, asegurate que al >> morir, todos lloren y solo tu rías.» >> >> >> >> Confucio >> >> > Confucius spoke Spanish? > > --doug To the same extent that he spoke English. :-) -- Liam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/slrnmk174l.jvf.liam.p.otoole@dipsy.tubbynet
Re: apt vs aptitude (was ... Re: non-stable packages infestation)
On 04/28/2015 09:51 PM, Marco Segura wrote: I think use aptitude or apt is more a personal decision than any other thing, however I believe aptitude is more powerful. -- Marco T. Segura M. «Cuando naciste, todos reían y solo tu llorabas, asegurate que al morir, todos lloren y solo tu rías.» Confucio Confucius spoke Spanish? --doug -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/55403aed.3070...@optonline.net
Re: apt vs aptitude (was ... Re: non-stable packages infestation)
I think use aptitude or apt is more a personal decision than any other thing, however I believe aptitude is more powerful. -- Marco T. Segura M. «Cuando naciste, todos reían y solo tu llorabas, asegurate que al morir, todos lloren y solo tu rías.» Confucio On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Tim Kelley wrote: > I think the reason some prefer apt is that aptitude has more finely grained > dependency handling and the dependencies have grown tremendously over the > years (over 40,000 discrete packages now). Even though apt will not break > anything, it's never a bad idea to use aptitude as it always offer > solutions. It's slower to search than apt-cache but it is much more powerful > in searching. Aptitude does a LOT more than apt-get. It like an apt-* > > I really use them interchangeably, and synaptic and other tools as well. It > really doesn't matter. > > But here's a copy / paste of the major differences: > > aptitude will automatically remove eligible packages, whereas apt-get > requires a separate command to do so > The commands for upgrade vs. dist-upgrade have been renamed in aptitude to > the probably more accurate names safe-upgrade and full-upgrade, > respectively. > aptitude actually performs the functions of not just apt-get, but also some > of its companion tools, such as apt-cache and apt-mark. > aptitude has a slightly different query syntax for searching (compared to > apt-cache) > aptitude has the why and why-not commands to tell you which manually > installed packages are preventing an action that you might want to take. > If the actions (installing, removing, updating packages) that you want to > take cause conflicts, aptitude can suggest several potential resolutions. > apt-get will just say "I'm sorry Dave, I can't allow you to do that." > > > Tim Kelley > > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Francisco M Neto wrote: >> >> I actually miss the good'ol days of dselect. Apart from that I've been >> using a combination of apt for small tasks and synaptic for large numbers of >> packages. >> >> >> On 04/27/2015 08:21 AM, Teresa e Junior wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:40:37 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: On Monday 27 April 2015 11:35:42 Chris Bannister wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 03:22:33AM -0300, Teresa e Junior wrote: >> >> On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 19:16:24 -0400, Kynn Jones wrote: >>> >>> I'm considering going back to apt, even though most of the advice >>> I've >>> read on apt vs aptitude leans in favor of the latter. After this >>> experience, I've lost trust in aptitude. >> >> >> Probably old advice, apt is the most recommended nowadays. > > > I don't think that is true at all. Agreed. There are pros and cons. I like and use aptitude. >>> >>> >>> Yeah, I thought I read somewhere that aptitude is not recommended >>> anymore, but looking back, what really happened is that I had many negative >>> experiences with aptitude (it would always try to uninstall packages >>> installed by apt), so the right sentence would be "apt is the most >>> recommended nowadays by me"® >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a >> subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org >> Archive: https://lists.debian.org/553e29e1.6010...@gmail.com >> > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CABHJ=oM4TQPdkenc9SNZ8gHAG9NzKWLkYjDpUdi=hpq2bcg...@mail.gmail.com
Re: apt vs aptitude (was ... Re: non-stable packages infestation)
I think the reason some prefer apt is that aptitude has more finely grained dependency handling and the dependencies have grown tremendously over the years (over 40,000 discrete packages now). Even though apt will not break anything, it's never a bad idea to use aptitude as it always offer solutions. It's slower to search than apt-cache but it is much more powerful in searching. Aptitude does a LOT more than apt-get. It like an apt-* I really use them interchangeably, and synaptic and other tools as well. It really doesn't matter. But here's a copy / paste of the major differences: - aptitude will automatically remove eligible packages, whereas apt-get requires a separate command to do so - The commands for *upgrade* vs. *dist-upgrade* have been renamed in aptitude to the probably more accurate names *safe-upgrade* and *full-upgrade*, respectively. - aptitude actually performs the functions of not just apt-get, but also some of its companion tools, such as apt-cache and apt-mark. - aptitude has a slightly different query syntax for searching (compared to apt-cache) - aptitude has the *why* and *why-not* commands to tell you which *manually installed* packages are preventing an action that you might want to take. - If the actions (installing, removing, updating packages) that you want to take cause conflicts, aptitude can suggest several potential resolutions. apt-get will just say "I'm sorry Dave, I can't allow you to do that." Tim Kelley On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 7:21 AM, Francisco M Neto wrote: > I actually miss the good'ol days of dselect. Apart from that I've been > using a combination of apt for small tasks and synaptic for large numbers > of packages. > > > On 04/27/2015 08:21 AM, Teresa e Junior wrote: > >> On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:40:37 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: >> >>> On Monday 27 April 2015 11:35:42 Chris Bannister wrote: >>> On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 03:22:33AM -0300, Teresa e Junior wrote: > On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 19:16:24 -0400, Kynn Jones wrote: > >> I'm considering going back to apt, even though most of the advice I've >> read on apt vs aptitude leans in favor of the latter. After this >> experience, I've lost trust in aptitude. >> > > Probably old advice, apt is the most recommended nowadays. > I don't think that is true at all. >>> >>> Agreed. There are pros and cons. I like and use aptitude. >>> >> >> Yeah, I thought I read somewhere that aptitude is not recommended >> anymore, but looking back, what really happened is that I had many negative >> experiences with aptitude (it would always try to uninstall packages >> installed by apt), so the right sentence would be "apt is the most >> recommended nowadays by me"® >> >> >> > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a > subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: https://lists.debian.org/553e29e1.6010...@gmail.com > >
Re: apt vs aptitude (was ... Re: non-stable packages infestation)
I actually miss the good'ol days of dselect. Apart from that I've been using a combination of apt for small tasks and synaptic for large numbers of packages. On 04/27/2015 08:21 AM, Teresa e Junior wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:40:37 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: On Monday 27 April 2015 11:35:42 Chris Bannister wrote: On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 03:22:33AM -0300, Teresa e Junior wrote: On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 19:16:24 -0400, Kynn Jones wrote: I'm considering going back to apt, even though most of the advice I've read on apt vs aptitude leans in favor of the latter. After this experience, I've lost trust in aptitude. Probably old advice, apt is the most recommended nowadays. I don't think that is true at all. Agreed. There are pros and cons. I like and use aptitude. Yeah, I thought I read somewhere that aptitude is not recommended anymore, but looking back, what really happened is that I had many negative experiences with aptitude (it would always try to uninstall packages installed by apt), so the right sentence would be "apt is the most recommended nowadays by me"® -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/553e29e1.6010...@gmail.com
Re: apt vs aptitude (was ... Re: non-stable packages infestation)
On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:40:37 +0100, Lisi Reisz wrote: On Monday 27 April 2015 11:35:42 Chris Bannister wrote: On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 03:22:33AM -0300, Teresa e Junior wrote: On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 19:16:24 -0400, Kynn Jones wrote: I'm considering going back to apt, even though most of the advice I've read on apt vs aptitude leans in favor of the latter. After this experience, I've lost trust in aptitude. Probably old advice, apt is the most recommended nowadays. I don't think that is true at all. Agreed. There are pros and cons. I like and use aptitude. Yeah, I thought I read somewhere that aptitude is not recommended anymore, but looking back, what really happened is that I had many negative experiences with aptitude (it would always try to uninstall packages installed by apt), so the right sentence would be "apt is the most recommended nowadays by me"® -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/553e1bac.7020...@gmail.com
Re: apt vs aptitude (was ... Re: non-stable packages infestation)
On Monday 27 April 2015 11:35:42 Chris Bannister wrote: > On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 03:22:33AM -0300, Teresa e Junior wrote: > > On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 19:16:24 -0400, Kynn Jones wrote: > > >I'm considering going back to apt, even though most of the advice I've > > >read on apt vs aptitude leans in favor of the latter. After this > > >experience, I've lost trust in aptitude. > > > > Probably old advice, apt is the most recommended nowadays. > > I don't think that is true at all. Agreed. There are pros and cons. I like and use aptitude. Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201504271140.37616.lisi.re...@gmail.com
apt vs aptitude (was ... Re: non-stable packages infestation)
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 03:22:33AM -0300, Teresa e Junior wrote: > On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 19:16:24 -0400, Kynn Jones wrote: > > >I'm considering going back to apt, even though most of the advice I've > >read on apt vs aptitude leans in favor of the latter. After this > >experience, I've lost trust in aptitude. > > Probably old advice, apt is the most recommended nowadays. I don't think that is true at all. -- "If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing." --- Malcolm X -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150427103541.GK20170@tal
Re: non-stable packages infestation
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Teresa e Junior wrote: > On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 19:16:24 -0400, Kynn Jones wrote: >> >> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Teresa e Junior >> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:35:29 -0400, Kynn Jones wrote: $ apt-cache policy sudo sudo: Installed: 1.8.5p2-1+nmu2 Candidate: 1.8.5p2-1+nmu2 Version table: *** 1.8.5p2-1+nmu2 0 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status 1.8.5p2-1+nmu1 0 500 http://debian.csail.mit.edu/debian/ stable/main amd64 Packages 500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stable/main amd64 Packages >>> >>> >>> If you disable a repository, its packages will appear as if they were >>> locally installed (/var/lib/dpkg/status). >> >> >> Thanks, that's good to know. I did disable a repo I'd used for >> backports, but replaced with another (I was not being able to connect >> reliably to the first one). > > Backports may be related too, but your sudo example is from wheezy security, > see https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=sudo I see your point, and I must confess I'm a bit puzzled. My policy is to always have security.debian.org enabled in my sources.list, so I'm at a loss to explain how the `apt-cache policy` output I posted happened. The evidence you point to, though, is pretty clear, so I stand corrected. Thanks, BTW, for showing me another way to find out where an installed package comes from. Recently I've had quite a few situations in which that bit of know-how would have been handy, but it didn't occur to me. >> I'm considering going back to apt, even though most of the advice I've >> read on apt vs aptitude leans in favor of the latter. After this >> experience, I've lost trust in aptitude. > Probably old advice, apt is the most recommended nowadays. Good to know. Thanks for all your help! kj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAFvQaj4RjsyjdOKvidYDJCDNoZZbwaNPD9rPC3dxvO=0ogm...@mail.gmail.com
Re: non-stable packages infestation
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 19:16:24 -0400, Kynn Jones wrote: On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Teresa e Junior wrote: On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:35:29 -0400, Kynn Jones wrote: $ apt-cache policy sudo sudo: Installed: 1.8.5p2-1+nmu2 Candidate: 1.8.5p2-1+nmu2 Version table: *** 1.8.5p2-1+nmu2 0 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status 1.8.5p2-1+nmu1 0 500 http://debian.csail.mit.edu/debian/ stable/main amd64 Packages 500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stable/main amd64 Packages If you disable a repository, its packages will appear as if they were locally installed (/var/lib/dpkg/status). Thanks, that's good to know. I did disable a repo I'd used for backports, but replaced with another (I was not being able to connect reliably to the first one). Backports may be related too, but your sudo example is from wheezy security, see https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=sudo I'm considering going back to apt, even though most of the advice I've read on apt vs aptitude leans in favor of the latter. After this experience, I've lost trust in aptitude. Probably old advice, apt is the most recommended nowadays. Teresa e Junior -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/553c8429.9050...@gmail.com
Re: non-stable packages infestation
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Teresa e Junior wrote: > On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:35:29 -0400, Kynn Jones wrote: >> >> $ apt-cache policy sudo >> sudo: >>Installed: 1.8.5p2-1+nmu2 >>Candidate: 1.8.5p2-1+nmu2 >>Version table: >> *** 1.8.5p2-1+nmu2 0 >> 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status >> 1.8.5p2-1+nmu1 0 >> 500 http://debian.csail.mit.edu/debian/ stable/main amd64 >> Packages >> 500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stable/main amd64 >> Packages > > If you disable a repository, its packages will appear as if they were > locally installed (/var/lib/dpkg/status). Thanks, that's good to know. I did disable a repo I'd used for backports, but replaced with another (I was not being able to connect reliably to the first one). After I hacked away at the mountain of non-stable packages, downgrading them one by one (and probably uninstalling stuff I shouldn't have), I found this recipe online http://ispire.me/downgrade-from-debian-sid-to-stable-from-jessie-to-wheezy ...and it did the trick. I can't say that I'm back to where I was yesterday (I think my frantic manual downgrading spree may have messed some things up), but at least the set of non-stable packages in the system is what it was yesterday. The whole experience has made me *very suspicious* of aptitude. First of all, this whole disaster happened while I've been using aptitude to manage my installations. But there's also this: After setting the sources.list and preferences file as described in the recipe above, but before running the apt-get commands at the end, I attempted to run the equivalent aptitude commands, starting with `aptitude upgrade`. Here's the thing: none of the `aptitude *upgrade` commands did anything. They all gave the same output: No packages will be installed, upgraded, or removed. 0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 59 not upgraded. Need to get 0 B of archives. After unpacking 0 B will be used. In contrast, `apt-get update` followed by `apt-get upgrade` worked like a charm. I'm considering going back to apt, even though most of the advice I've read on apt vs aptitude leans in favor of the latter. After this experience, I've lost trust in aptitude. kj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cafvqaj7s5uihgckh6z8aehakeq-noawsy8ddtcste-exykv...@mail.gmail.com
Re: non-stable packages infestation
On Sat, 25 Apr 2015 17:35:29 -0400, Kynn Jones wrote: $ apt-cache policy sudo sudo: Installed: 1.8.5p2-1+nmu2 Candidate: 1.8.5p2-1+nmu2 Version table: *** 1.8.5p2-1+nmu2 0 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status 1.8.5p2-1+nmu1 0 500 http://debian.csail.mit.edu/debian/ stable/main amd64 Packages 500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stable/main amd64 Packages If you disable a repository, its packages will appear as if they were locally installed (/var/lib/dpkg/status). You have probably disabled the security updates, which I don't recommend: deb http://security.debian.org wheezy/updates main contrib non-free $ apt-cache policy sudo sudo: Instalado: 1.8.5p2-1+nmu2 Candidato: 1.8.5p2-1+nmu2 Tabela de versão: *** 1.8.5p2-1+nmu2 0 500 http://security.debian.org/ wheezy/updates/main i386 Packages 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status 1.8.5p2-1+nmu1 0 500 http://ftp.debian.org/debian/ wheezy/main i386 Packages -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/553c17af.9080...@gmail.com
non-stable packages infestation
I'm trying really, really, really hard to keep my system mostly within stable, but I must be doing something completely wrong, because at the moment my system is infested with > 100 packages that are not from stable, and that I am 10% certain I did not explicitly install. These uninvited packages are causing me a lot of headaches. Is there some way, short of reinstalling my whole system from scratch, to downgrade all these packages to stable? I welcome any suggestions, kj PS1: I know that, in principle, I can downgrade individual packages by installing the specific version, but I'm talking about ~140 packages here, and it would be a nightmare to determine the right version for each one in order to reinstall it. PS2: BTW, I assume that these non-stable packages come from wheezy-backports, since this is the only non-stable source I have in my sources.list, but when I run apt-cache list on any of them, the output does not tell me the release of the installed version; for example (`sudo` is one of the non-stable packages that are currently in my system, and that I know, for sure, that I did not explicitly install): $ apt-cache policy sudo sudo: Installed: 1.8.5p2-1+nmu2 Candidate: 1.8.5p2-1+nmu2 Version table: *** 1.8.5p2-1+nmu2 0 100 /var/lib/dpkg/status 1.8.5p2-1+nmu1 0 500 http://debian.csail.mit.edu/debian/ stable/main amd64 Packages 500 http://ftp.us.debian.org/debian/ stable/main amd64 Packages -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/cafvqaj5n8ry9dadwfipkkvw01rvdw9jovagiqhezfp9o17+...@mail.gmail.com
